The Actual Truth About Medicare for All

--In the midst of lots of really bad arguments against Medicare for All, we take a look at the serious critiques that can be made of Medicare for All, including Bernie's plan and and other version of Medicare for All
www.nytimes.co...
www.washington...
www.vox.com/20...
www.urban.org/...
Support The David Pakman Show:
-Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
-Become a Patron: / davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
Engage with us on social media:
-Join on KZbin: / @thedavidpakmanshow
-Follow David on Twitter: / dpakman
-David on Instagram: / david.pakman
-TDPS on Instagram: / davidpakmanshow
-Discuss on TDPS subreddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
-Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day! Make sure to subscribe!
Broadcast on October 24, 2019
#davidpakmanshow #medicareforall #medicare4all

[@willfulton9276]

this video was incredible, David. I'd love to see another video like this on UBI, GND, Wealth Tax/VAT, free college, $15 hr min wage, etc: basically just videos of you taking a policy, showing valid criticisms of those policies, and seeing if they hold up to the criticism, or aren't the best possible way.

[@souljaboyisbad]

Yeah. The rest (like Kyle) act like salesman

[@brianwalkup5214]

Will Fulton I think you are making a great point here. As voters we get so little information from our constant press chatter which only tends to focus on the political fights instead of the policy.

[@gpapanikolaou]

One positive view on UBI I found kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYvSm6N-qZhrla8

[@nathanmosqueda3185]

Will Fulton $15 is bad

[@Nerule]

I second this

[@normanmortensen2591]

Living in Scandinavia and currently undergoing stage 4 cancer treatment, I need to express my gratitude for the medical system here and Americans do not know what they are missing. Here I have no concern or doubt that I get the best medical treatment possible.

[@MeasAgun]

Get better soon Bro'!!! Love from France

[@thehomeplatespecial597]

No one can say they are receiving the best care definitively because they are only able to receive only certain care available to them.

[@wvu05]

Hope your treatment is a success.

[@cadeholbrook2454]

the US has the highest cancer survival rates for most cancers

[@wvu05]

@@cadeholbrook2454 Except for the millions who never get treatment at all because they don't have insurance or their insurance won't cover it.

[@tokyozardoz]

Every developed country in the world has lower per person health care costs than the US.

[@mmolchin]

Anthony Dolan thank you, we need to have less of a conversation about the cost to the consumer and more of a conversation about how best to reduce overall healthcare and pharma costs In the US. Most of the economists mentioned still operate under the assumption that costs and price negotiations will remain the same.

[@CC-vq1yg]

That's what pisses me off so much. Every civilised country on the planet does it for less than what the US pays... but we can't be sure if the US can provide medicare for all at a cheaper rate. People in the US pay 10x more for medicine, but "why are we assuming prices will go down?"

[@willwires8348]

I imagine it's because every other country has removed the profit motivator from their healthcare system.

[@michaelbeelby1995]

Not only do all those countries have lower costs.....they achieve better outcomes than the US...That is one luxury the US has...We can look at numerous different systems and see what works best for the lowest cost. The problem is that profit motivation drives and irrational, unfounded fears drive some to utterly ignore the empirical data in favor of a strictly ideological viewpoint.

[@CC-vq1yg]

@@michaelbeelby1995 exactly. We don't have to invent any brand new untested system. The US can go pick and choose and adjust. But people still act like it's outrageous to say costs will decrease, lives will be saved, quality of life will increase

[@richardmackintosh]

This was GREAT. Unlike others you dont pick a stance and shove your head into the sand and refuse to discuss it further

[@delboyg01]

No, he says there are others systems which can't be named? Public option has many more issues, like the fact that the private insurance companies will dump all the costly patients onto the government system, thus setting it up to 100% fail. So if that is a know fact, then what are the other options? Germany for example regulate the insurance industry more than the banks, they are in a straight jacket in terms of what they can & cannot do - that's why private insurance works there.

[@corneliusagrippa4613]

@@delboyg01 Also they never add the cost people pay when insurance doesn't cover their bills. That is a major cost never added to the comparison, nor the impact of medical bankruptcy nor the savings brought by preventative care vs what we have now. Nor the savings from removing the massive bureaucracy and paperwork.

[@souljaboyisbad]

@@delboyg01 most of the other universal healthcare systems out there are different than m4a

[@delboyg01]

@@souljaboyisbad- All of the other systems have one thing in common with M4A, they ALL remove the profit margin and reduce the cost of care as much as possible! None allow an industry to craft the laws and then milk the consumer like cows!

[@Shilgne1]

@@souljaboyisbad true. each country has their own form of healthcare but there is a single payer system in most. Single payer being the government .

[@sawyermiller8739]

It's sad you have to preface literally every critique numerous times to say you aren't against it.

[@julianerikson4191]

Because unfortunately there are a lot of immature and closeminded people on the left online who call anyone who disagrees with them a "corporate shill", "neoliberal puppet", etc. And I say this as a left-winger who prefers Medicare-for-All. This is why I love David Pakman, he's calm and not overbearingly dogmatic like some left-wing KZbinrs like Humanist Report and Secular Talk are at times.

[@aidenmalecky7928]

​@@julianerikson4191 My thoughts exactly! I prefer Medicare-for-All too, but I don't hate on everyone who doesn't, as it seems a lot progressive pundits do. I also don't think Bernie Sanders is some sort of demi-god even though he's who I plan to vote for in the primary. I'm so tired of purity tests. It's why I appreciate David so much because he's more objective and genuinely interested in opposing views.

[@ClownCarCoup]

Sad. And tedious. It’s every freakin vid he posts.

[@corneliusagrippa4613]

@@julianerikson4191 Funny, I feel the exact opposite. Love Secular Talk, Humanist Report, Rational National, Status Coup, Tim Black etc etc etc (wow, the vast majority of progressives disagree w Pakman, in many ways) but have serious issues with the overbearingly pseudo-objective and overtly pedantic nature of Pakman.

[@kapiljain2534]

Exactly. It is sad that people who claim to be progressives, act like braindead unnuanced right wingers when it comes to this topic. It is understandable that David had to be so apologetic about this well reasoned critique, as lot of his viewer base is made up of such people, which is evident from the comments here.

[@bruceleeroy8302]

I think one of the best arguments for M4A that I haven't heard is that, when you are doing your best financially you pay into it the most, *however* when you are not doing so well financially, say, you lost your job or got demoted, you're still going to have access to the same healthcare.

[@virginiamoss7045]

BINGO!

[@acinoralas9107]

Huge factor people overlook.

[@virginiamoss7045]

It's a bit Marxist (each according to their ability), but is reasonable and fair when considering health care (maybe not other enterprises).

[@imisstoronto3121]

I'm Canadian, and my healthcare is NOT tied to work. Yes a job can give you extra benefits, but again that is not part of the country's healthcare programme. If I lose my job, I can still go to a doctor if I need to, and no one tells me which one to go to.

[@virginiamoss7045]

@ - You mean a larger paycheck since employers could put what they were paying for insurance coverage for their employees into their paychecks. On top of that employees and all citizens would pay less for better coverage with Medicare for All given its massive pool and no need to advertise, sell or satisfy investors. It's win/win for all the people.

[@Rin-qj7zt]

medicare for all isn't just about reducing the cost of health care overall. it's about shifting the cost burden to those who can afford it so those who can't can be covered.

[@paulshipper143]

He's trying to give criticism to medicare for all in a vacuum.. ignoring that medicare for all is the only universal health care plan offered. He wants to pretend we can have an honest conversation about universal coverage when health insurance company make a big bulk of campaign funding for politicians. If we make health care insurance public, we can solve the other issues later... at the consequence things might cost more for a while.

[@tahjclemons8911]

Paul Shipper Why can’t Americans do something similar to Australia’s Medicare system

[@paulshipper143]

@@tahjclemons8911 In America the majority of the facilities are privately own. In Australia there are public and private hospitals. The fight in America is just about the insurance part... If someone could make a plan to transition our current system to something like Australia, that would be worth a look. Technically I can make a outline for such a plan.... but to be honest, no politician would do this because it would require 'more' structure changes than medicare for all. Which facilities should be converted to public.. how much do we regulate the private insurance companies that are bigger than the Australian ones, etc. the US politicians won't have an honest conversation for universal coverage beside the "public option" which would cost more than Medical for All. And the reason why politicians won't look at other options is because they want a quick fix that has the least amount of change

[@thehomeplatespecial597]

@@paulshipper143 the least amount of change will pass. The more amount will not. 10% of something now is better than 100% of nothing.

[@paulshipper143]

@@thehomeplatespecial597 Yeah.. 10% of something being better than 100% of nothing isn't how it work... Remember, Trump promised a lot of change and managed to get it despite of the good the Obama Administration did. If people don't see significant change, they come a little to authoritarianism. Just getting 10% will lead people to take advantage and offer the other 90% in unique and horrible ways.

[@sea0fgreen33]

Too much preface, just get into it man. You'll never have a disclaimer good enough to keep em from bitching. We've seen the bad faith critiques, I am eager to see the legit downsides.

[@virginiamoss7045]

Yeah, no need to be so apologetic.

[@jed2746]

Counter idea, have a skip the apology timestamp. Any viewers wanna commit to this? Wonder if skipthekrip is a pakman fan.

[@Endoscopic911]

@@jed2746 Just post the time the apologies are over for others

[@jed2746]

@@Endoscopic911 that's exactly what I mean

[@09marathon]

Nobody would bitch if instead of the fake prefacing he just said he likes Warren

[@SixStringHarmonies]

How about: *A REAL critique of medical bankruptcies?*

[@corneliusagrippa4613]

Pakman, I will assume you are being genuine in your critique. There are serious questions I'd need answered before I would even remotely trust these "left wing. 1 What history, if any, do they have w the private insurance/drug/medical industry? Funding or employment crossover? 2 Is it counting the massive reduction in bureaucracy , red tape, forms and the costs associated with them? If not, it's not an accurate study. 3 Is it counting the corporate profits earned by those corporations? All that profit will, instead, belong to the gov, not greedy CEOs. 4 Is it counting the cost of current patient behavior or is it, accurately, taking into account the massive impact preventative care will have on overall cost? 5 How is this comparison calculated exactly? Does it take into account people losing jobs and having to pay out of pocket because they no longer have insurance? Is it taking into account price control of medication, which is a large part of M4A? If not, it's inaccurate. Or the cost people pay, out of pocket, when insurance doesn't cover the medical care? I see all these "official" costs added but how is out of pocket costs covered? I'm assuming it is ignored, as it would be included. 6 Is medical bankruptcy factored in, at all? If not, it is, yet again, highly inaccurate. 7 Lastly, why should people trust these people or organizations when the establishment left is a bigger opponent of M4A than even the GOP? The majority of democratic candidates attack M4A openly, on behalf of the industry. Being "on the left" means nothing.

[@virginiamoss7045]

@@corneliusagrippa4613 - Being "on the left" does means something, especially as opposed to "being on the right". It's legitimate.

[@jilliansmith7123]

He used the term "left leaning" to indicate they WANT medicare for all/universal coverage to work, but they can't honestly just say it's 100% great. He therefore thinks they're being very fair. They're not just rubber-stamping it. I agree with him. If even the strongest advocates say there are problems, then it's a fair thing to consider.

[@2DRonaldo]

@@corneliusagrippa4613 In an ideal World, but the Nhs has too much upper management, not enough Doctors, nurses etc. Why this is the case? I don't know? maybe favours for upperclass/upper-middleclass spivs that are milking the system? Giving jobs that are not needed or required? A lack of adequate resources being brought to the frontline? Deliberate sabotaging by the Tories? There is allot of questions that need answering. But yeah I agree with your point, none of that private tax for Healthcare will go towards maximizing shareholders profits anymore, that's one example of costs going down. Finding a balance with Managerial staff so that it's efficient and cost effective. Getting rid of the laws that make it illegal to negotiate prices with drugs companies, capping how much they are allowed to make off life saving drugs. Heck even the insane amount of money that is being wasted in Military Spending would be more than enough to alleviate taxes for Middleclass families. Tweeking the budget is possible.. Other Countries can do it and their GDP doesn't come close to competting with the US.

[@An_Imperial_Guard.]

"if, if,if they want medic care they can just get a job that gives you health insurance..." A- Not every single job offers health insurance, they is no law that force it. B- The jobs that actually offers health insurance are highly demanding and they doesn't hire anybody, if you are a person that have health problems, unless you are the best of the best of your profession you are out of luck.

[@IshtarNike]

Well duh, if you're morally weak enough to get sick enough to reduce your productivity then you don't deserve health insurance. Insurance is for people wise enough not to get sick in the first place!

[@CC-vq1yg]

Well you should have thought of that before you became a peasant

[@ghostratsarah]

we can afford Trump's golfing, but not healthcare.

[@CC-vq1yg]

Don't forget the billions wasted by the Oentagon each year, not to mention paying for endless war

[@CC-vq1yg]

@@OfficiallyUnofficialKamala2024 Bernies system of good quality, guaranteed healthcare for all will cost $32 trillion over the next decade. The current scam system will cost over $50 trillion over the same time period. Medicare for all saves lives and offers more coverage for less money. It is easily affordable, the rest of the civilised world worked it out decades ago.

[@ghostratsarah]

@@OfficiallyUnofficialKamala2024 An overhaul of our nation's healthcare is minimal compared to current costs of healthcare; if you bar the common rhetoric, to our workforce and economy. Do you have any idea how many people are on permanent disability+welfare because they didn't go to the doctor for minor problems, because they couldn't afford it? Things as small as a cold can develope into life long, irreversible, disabling conditions if complications aren't immediately treated. Broken bones, cancer, autoimmune disease, infections- particularly MRSA, so many other things that can be caught and prevented from worsening. And this is brushing aside how people spread infectios diseases to others, when they could have been given treatment, nip the contagious phase in the bud. Particularly HIV, Hepatitis, and HPV, all can be serpressed to the point they are virtually cured and unable to infect others or progress to disability. The medications to treat these are far out of reach even for most people with basic insurance, due to cost- yet they cost essentially nothing to make and are virtually free to other countries, in comparison. We already subsidize all R&D cost through our taxes, more than any other country, yet we pay a senseless premium to gain access to what we ALREADY paid for. My father and I are two people who are permanently disabled, because we were denied proper treatment due to, in my case; denial of treatment because of insurance, in my father's case; lack of insurance. We are such a drain on society that we might as well be culled. But I don't want to die, so, sorry. I still pay more than 10% of my income on taxes though, and spend every last penny I get, which keeps the money flowing through the economy (theoretically, most of it is actually going into the pockets of the hording 1%)

[@larryjennings3476]

speaking as a physician, good points about current inflated costs (pharma, corruption, etc) but Bernie has thought of this and M4ALL is best system to address these too, in addition to bureaucracy. BERNIE 2020!

[@corneliusagrippa4613]

Not to mention savings from preventative care and cost from out of pocket payments, never included in these anti M4A arguments.

[@abigailhayes7910]

larry jennings agreed

[@iamdanyboy1]

I think a lot of physicians may also be willing to take a cut if it means all payments are now guaranteed because what is covered and what is not is clear and there is no issue with doctor networks and all opening up a greater pool of patients. I have seen a lot of docs bitch about paperwork and payments not coming through from insurance companies because of not being in the pool and they are often not incentivised enough to follow up with the patient or hospital for reimbursement . On top of that student loans and debts go away. And all is peachy.

[@virginiamoss7045]

If you are really a physician, how can I know what the majority of doctors feel about this issue? Do the two main medical associations have statements or opinions about Medicare for All? I often want to ask my own doctors what they think, but it would seem inappropriate for the doctor/patient relationship. I want their input on this as well as economists, patients, providers and even the pharmaceutical industry (the latter I think I already know their point of view).

[@CC-vq1yg]

@@virginiamoss7045 last study I saw was half the doctors in the US are in favour of M4A the other 50% are undecided, neutral or against

[@jaymtl79]

Here is the truth. IT WORKS. I live in Canada THANK YOU MOM AN DAD USA your country is sick.

[@robertbarth3476]

One of the benefits of Medicare for all is the huge amount of money that's save by everyone going to the doctor on a regular basis, this will significantly decrease the seriousness of their illness. A lot cheaper to keep people health if they're not afraid to go to the doctor.

[@Jacaerys1]

Good, now I'll be able to better debate the pros and cons of M4A with my coworkers. Thanks David.

[@X-rayAnon]

>he unironically debates co-workers on politics 😂😂😂

[@chucku00]

The hypothetical raise of cost can be countered by the fact that families won't be going bankrupt over medical bills anymore. This fact and its social and economical consequences seems to have more value than the raise of cost. My two cents.

[@CC-vq1yg]

There will be no raise in costs, that is medical industry fear mongering. The civislised world all have different versions of medicare for all, they provide good quality care to all, at about half the per person cost of the US. People always bring up how Bernies plan will cost $34 trillion over 10 years, but leave out the fact that the current scam system will cost over $50 trillion. They ignore that people in the US pay up to 10x more for the exact same medicine as people in other countries. They ignore that people have no choice in their healthcare now, their insurance tells them where they can and can't go. Their insurance can change or deny benefits any time they want without warning. They ignore that 30,000 peiple die each year because they couldn't afford healthcare. They ignore that 500,000 people go bankrupt each year because of medical bills.

[@ginawhiteley8834]

It is the insurance companies that are fear mongering about medical coverage for all.:((

[@acinoralas9107]

I cant see any scenario where med for all would be more expensive for reg people.

[@thehomeplatespecial597]

I can.

[@acinoralas9107]

@@thehomeplatespecial597 it's going to cost less and the plan bernie proposed taxs the rich so it shifts the expense to them . We spent 3.5 trillion on health care in 2018 and that number keeps going up with the free market model we have now . Even the right wing marcadus study showed Bernies plan would cost about 3.2 trillion a year for the next 10 years. If you can do math you can figure this one out. .1 of a trillion dollars is a fucking shitload of money especially annually.

[@camius1]

When people learn to not eat junk poison thats that everybody fat and sick, When people stop drinking till they pass out, then maybe id consider giving my tax dollars to such a plan....When obama charged my $600 in 2016 because I did not have insurance, i said fuck off to big daddy govt.

[@acinoralas9107]

@ and the only ones paying more will be the extreamly wealthy . They have cut the corporate income tax 4 times sense the 80s. I think they can find some room on there to make up the difference. Trickle down has been a disaster for middle class families

[@acinoralas9107]

@ no ones saying our taxs wont go up but the increase wont be nearly as much as most are paying annually for health care. Per capita the us pays more then any country on earth . In no scenario would that continue to be true under med 4 all. The primary reason were paying so damn much is because the profit models of the private health care industry.

[@Sassarai916]

So Yang was right all along!

[@corneliusagrippa4613]

Yeah, the same plan Biden, Kamala and Warren support. Yup, you've figured it all out.

[@Sassarai916]

@@corneliusagrippa4613 yes phase in to single payer. The best plan.

[@issaciams]

I'm triggered by the fact you used the expression "triggered". 😂

[@Xpistos510]

issaciams And the fact that you’re triggered by Dave using “triggered” triggers me.

[@MSBLS721]

@@Xpistos510 haha and I'm triggered by the fact that you called him Dave instead of David, Jake. 😳😁🤪😜

[@robertjenkins6132]

@@Xpistos510 I'm triggered by the fact that you're triggered by the fact that OP is triggered by David using the word "triggered."

[@wendell7173]

*Medicare for all is significantly better than the train wreck system we have now. The idea is to get the single payer system implemented and then improve upon it.*

[@johnsphpaulin1162]

I'm curious why you say that it might be unrealistic to assume prices would drop to International levels once there is a single organization negotiating on behalf of the entire country? I'm not trying to be rude when I say this by the way, I have simply never seen any reason why this would be the case and if there is something I am not accounting for in my reasoning I would like to know. Thanks for the video and have a great day.

[@jamesmassey2089]

The experience of other countries can only be a GENERAL guidepost. There are a lot of variables that will impact outcomes. Correlation vs, causation, "law of unintended consequences," etc. What I got is to be impartial, objective data miners to strengthen our arguments for M4A, and weaken any opposing positions. I viewed it 3X to get the full picture. Hope this helps.

[@johnsphpaulin1162]

@@jamesmassey2089 Understandable, but the way he said it almost seems to imply but he had a specific reason in mind as for why we might not be able to achieve similar prices. And if that is the case I would be incredibly interested in knowing what such a reason would be, because for the life of me I can't think of why we wouldn't be able to achieve even relatively similar prices. But perhaps I'm also just looking too much into this, that is definitely a possibility.

[@jamesmassey2089]

@@johnsphpaulin1162 I'd attribute it to Warren's political cautiousness, not an unwillingness to be transparent. That's just me. I think DP was acknowledging that kind of mind set maybe. Think "Spiderman: Into the Multiverse"????

[@davidroberts1689]

My biggest critique of Medicare for All is that it isn't already put in place. 30,000 deaths a year due to lack of healthcare, 500,000 bankruptcies a year, paying twice per capita than any other country in the world, allowing pharmaceutical companies to set their own prices after we have paid for the research on the drugs, if we don't do medicare for all, we will pay more. How can we afford to keep the same overpriced medical insurance system we have now?

[@davidroberts1689]

You say that it will cost more, but you give us no evidence.

[@sea0fgreen33]

Are these economists taking into account the price of service going down, with a single payer system? Cause if they are calculating the price of service remaining the same, yea it'll be more on paper. Cause prices are artificially inflated at the moment. Lets say a emergency appendectomy is 10k now. They ask 10k so they can get as much as possible from insurance. When its a single payer system, they will be forced to take what they can get, if they want to peddle their service.

[@iamdanyboy1]

Yeah. He touched this in the end. The 2016 articles I read did mention that costs would mainly go down 2 ways- pharma costs will be forced to go down by the govt by legislation and procedures and service costs will be renegotiated through the leverage of the largest insurance pool in the country . But again this is all not inbuilt with M4A but is something that would need to be worked on post passage of the bill. So it's still a legitimate concern, if not a criticism a such.

[@virginiamoss7045]

Then we will have to try to judge the quality of services to figure out how cheap they will or have to go to operate under lower reimbursement. We already have low reimbursement from Medicare that providers complain about to the point some won't take Medicare. How many providers would decide to abandon health care altogether in order to make more money with less stress in a different field of work? This would have to be a delicate balance ongoing.

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

Except that it's 39k

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

@@iamdanyboy1 needs to be done now not when some giant plan is agreed on.

[@saultorres8125]

Well anyone who has worked in medical billing will tell you that doctors & hospitals have to bill much higher than the actual production cost of the service because the insurance companies never pay 100% of billed services. It is tough to work in an industry where you do not know what you will be paid by your clients regardless of what you actually bill them. If doctors knew 100% what they would be paid, like when there is only ONE PAYER, then they could more accurately manage pricing.

[@cyber6sapien]

Excellent!! THIS is an example of what Progressive channels should offer its viewers as content!

[@videovoidtv]

Great work. Thank you for this David. Very useful to hear it later out like a brief.

[@Supermrloo]

You're contrasting our current healthcare system as if it is free-market. It's not. You are engaging in bad faith critiques assuming we do live in a free-market healthcare system.

[@thedebatehitman]

2:40 The other point worth considering is that the size of the population may be less of a factor than per capita resources and healthcare spending. Country A has a population of 100M, a median income of $50,000, and spends $10,000 per capita on healthcare. Country B has a population of 10M, a median income of $50,000, and spends $10,000 per capita on healthcare. While Country A indeed spends more than Country B, the economic strain is comparable, if not identical, because the larger country also boasts more resources to go along with its larger population and spending.

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

Also certain ethnicities body types cultural practices... Weather they have decendents of slaves population. Not all countries are the same. Even ones that look good on paper have quality of life issues.

[@yomiknishes6976]

This would be equivalent to a right wing talk host coddling: "Now to be clear you CAN keep your guns! We're not taking away your guns, we are just installing a registration system for new buyers. Again, we are not taking your guns away!" Who am I kidding? What right wing host would say that...

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

Lol

[@Taraquin83]

I think the best approach for the US Healthcare system would be to adopt the model they use in Switzerland. It`s still insurance-based, but the government negotiate prices on drugs, treatments, decides maximum fees for different treatments, makes it available to everyone for a very low cost for the poorest. When the government negotiates prices they get far better deals than 100 different insurancecompanies negotiation individually. I live in Norway and here most of the system is funded by the government, prices and treatments are negotiated by the government, we also have private insurance which people can buy if they want, but in general everyone is mostly covered by the public healthsystem. Changing from a unregulated private healthsystem like in US to a public funded one in a few years is not realistic, but changing a mostly unregulated system like US have today to a much more regulated system like in Switzerland is a much more realistic approach. If we compare prices on different systems Norway spends a bit less per capita than Switzerland and about half of the US, still going from current US system to Swiss-system is far easier than transitioning to the Norwegian system. For the record: For most people the Norwegian system is not free either, if we og to the doctor, physical therapist etc we pay a small fee each time, but there is a max fee each year for the majority of treatments (doctor, phsycologist, medicines etc is about 220USD max a year + another 220USD if you og to rehab (drugs, hip-replacement etc), use physical therapist, some dentaltreatments that are covered etc). Most treatment if you get into an accident and have surgery is completely covered, but medication afterwards is put under the max fee category. Also, dental is not covered for adults With a few rare exceptions. If some of what I am writing is wrong please correct me, I might be wrong about some of it and my english is somewhat limited so some of what I write might not be like I intended.

[@Taraquin83]

@James D Robertson Except there is no will to do it. Even many democrats don't want pubøic healthcare. Ideally I think the solution we have in Norway is the best solution, but a transition to a swiss model is far easier to do in US. Maybe public healthcare can be achieved after 10-20 years. Swiss model can be part of the road. Comparing it to GB post WW2 is a bit difficult. They had a will to change, lobbyists, big pharma and insurancecompanies didn't have much influence so it was far easier to do.

[@Taraquin83]

@James D Robertson what we want and what is realistic are to different things. I wish for the same as you, but honestly it's impossible today. 10-20 years is what it takes for diffetent regulations, laws and most importantly: replacing many people in the congress and senate so there can be a majority for change. I hope it takes lesd than 10-20 years, but after following a lot of less demanding reforms in Norway I see that they take several years to implement. Latest one is deciminalisation of drugs. 2 years since majority voted for it. Experts will make their suggestions on how to implement in december this year, maybe fully implemented in 2022/2023 and they had a easy job with the majority in our congress.

[@victorperez2939]

I FUCKIN LOVE THIS CLIP! Great Job David!!!

[@09marathon]

Nobody would attack you IF you disclosed that you like Warren

[@Mercurie3]

Can you invite back Andrew Yang to discuss M4A?? 🤔😅🙂 Thanks David!!!!!

[@davidchidester5463]

Healthcare is such a complex topic. Thanks for this fair coverage David. There are trade offs in every system. So much of the Twitter debates happening simplify things to short vague arguments. Good faith arguments get shot down so quickly because of candidate bias. Let's debate this civilly so we end up with the best system we can get.

[@Pete_952]

Every Single Developed Country has State Sponsored Healthcare, Except America.

[@jilliansmith7123]

Pete 952: Costa Rica has better medicare/universal healthcare coverage than the USA. COSTA RICA! And they have Zika and swamp creatures.

[@michaelhuang1309]

Is there an example of a country that implemented some form of medicare for all and the cost for middle class families didn't go down?

[@CC-vq1yg]

Nope. The civilised world worked it out 50+ years ago, but we aren't sure if it'll work in the US, there are too many unknowns. Huh? I'm very disappointed in Davids analysis. Per person the US pays double the average of other developed countries for healthcare. Up to 10x more for the exact same medicine. Trying to see if your insurance will work at a clinic before you go takes multiple phone calls, and they still tell you that confirmation of coverage does not mean your visit will be covered. If the US can't work it out it's becuase people are too stupid, lazy or corrupt, end of story.

[@bahramahmad]

Even if the cost goes up, the fundamental issue is "Healthcare is a Human Right". You can cut the military cost and war expenditures and add those to healthcare in the general budget.

[@Mercurie3]

Mr Pakman what do you think about the risk vs reward of Yangs plan vs Bernie's plan vs other candidates plans???

[@corneliusagrippa4613]

Yang and everyone but Sanders support a public option. The minute differences between their version of a public option is like choosing your fav flavor of shit.

[@Mercurie3]

@@corneliusagrippa4613 No that is totally misrepresenting the issue, if we have all options on the table because it's very important. It's never good when we jump blindfolded into a river. We need to discuss this much more.

[@ReggieMeisler]

David these techno-bureaucrats don't care about how well the system works. They are concern trolling. If they were honest, they would tell you that the public option is a complete non-starter. That private health insurance companies actually want Medicare 55, for instance, because shifting sick people onto the public option and having nothing but healthy people in their risk pool is just a subsidy for them. If anyone is watching this and actually believes this stuff, I encourage you to go over and watch some videos at Majority Report instead, where Sam Seder very easily dismantles arguments in favor of alternative public-option systems. The truth is, even if you believe you wanted a Holland-style system, you would not get as good a price on drugs, you wouldn't get free at point of service (so preventative care is weakened), you would not get the same level of coverage, and you would still need to put aggressive price regulations on drugs and force all private insurance companies to be more heavily regulated, use a public ledger, and be a stricter form of non-profit (That we don't even have in US).

[@Riviera501]

I appreciate you adding some nuance to the conversation, David.

[@kirmie44]

Would you do something like this for public option too?

[@larryjennings3476]

public option is a scam. insurance corporations push high cost patients on public option and say see, public option is inefficient! would FedEx ever deliver a letter to Montana for 48 cents? Even across the street?!

[@Cuhulin1]

Public Option is either (a) a fraud, as someone else has already stated, because it will allow insurers to make arguments in the future against it, or (b) simply nowhere near as good because it does not stop all the administrative costs associated with the existing system.

[@kirmie44]

@@Cuhulin1 what extra administrative costs come from having a public option? Also, saying it will be used to justify it's demise doesn't tell me why you think it's bad.

[@mikeconstanza]

@@kirmie44 Providers still have to deal with all of the different insurance companies, which requires massive administrative bloat. We spend much more on administration than other countries-emergency rooms typically spend upwards of 25% of revenue on just billing.

[@kirmie44]

@@mikeconstanza but doesn't the responsibility of the administration fall to the hospitals?

[@skathryn7380]

Links to the two papers David referenced: Thorpe: www.healthcare-now.org/296831690-Kenneth-Thorpe-s-analysis-of-Bernie-Sanders-s-single-payer-proposal.pdf Pollin: www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all

[@benjaminkessler8118]

Thank you for doing this! The past few days there has been a lot of youtubers saying Yang isn't for Medicare for all, and they've been using a single clip where he vaguely disagrees with Bernie's plan. I don't understand why they aren't waiting till he actually releases his healthcare plan

[@jisaacb8148]

Bernie's proposals are great because they show he's serious about making the system accessible for all, but I think we still need to address all the issues in a thorough way and respond to criticisms, otherwise, we'll get nowhere.

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

That is true

[@alexo82191]

I literally got schooled lol. This is why I like you David, you give pro and con you dont choose a side you give valid information. Keep it up brother. I'm all ears, people need to be educated in what and how our system works.

[@paulkauffman1787]

So, a couple questions - how exactly does the argument that we have a larger pool of people (bc of our population) which makes insurance cheaper (as you claim) square with the idea that "costs may go up" for the Average American? How can we simultaneously have the largest single market for health insurance in the world, and yet "we can't say for sure" whether costs are likely to go up or down? Is it because the benefits are just so generous, or we're just taking the skeptical "no one can ever really say for sure until it's already happened" position here? Something else? Also, you were discussing employee payroll taxes taking a chunk out of their pay, but you didn't discuss that this happens *right now* because healthcare costs *are* figured into employee compensation packages. Leaving out this information makes it seem like the average employee will just see a tax increase in exchange for health insurance. However, it also involves the company *not* spending time/resources/money on private health insurance, and some of that money should go back into workers pocket in the form of increased wages/benefits. Compare that with the Medicare for All Who Want it, where employees *will still* have the company's time/resources/money on healthcare costs figured into their compensation, but then *have the option* to take it on the chin twice if they want to *also* opt into Medicare. Which is kind of the crux i guess? Taking one proposal in a vacuum - and not comparing it to the other options available - doesn't really tell us anything. And comparing it just to our current system gives credence that some other magical reform option won't have these exact pitfalls. I get that M4A isn't *perfect* but that isn't the question - the questions is what, *of all the available options*, provides the highest guaranteed standard of care for all Americans at the lowest price.

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

We don't even have enough doctors

[@paulkauffman1787]

@@kylekylekyle0k Excuse me, but I never said that employers would pass on the full savings - however, you agreeing with me that there *is* a savings, lends much more credence to my position (that employees will have more bargaining power, thus you should expect to see an increase in wages) than yours (all business owners are evil capital hoarders). And this position is even stronger if you compare it to something like Buttigieg's plan where employees will still be receiving compensation packages that include healthcare (which isn't free!) but then also have to pay into Medicare if they choose to opt into it. We KNOW that the costs will go down for M4A, so I have no idea what your point even is regarding Obamacare - that employees wage increases didn't make up for the increased cost of individuals buying private plans is completely unrelated to anything I said.

[@paulkauffman1787]

@ It's anything but a stupid line of logic to believe that if workers can negotiate on fewer aspects of their compensation, those that remain will have to go up to compensate. No no, capital owners bad, say no more.

@@kylekylekyle0k THANK YOU. Someone else finally gets what I am saying. Telling people nothing but "saving, cheaper, saving, cheaper" leads most to believe they aren't going to have to pay a penny. And when it turns out they will, they'll be against it forever. There's a reason support for single payer is now the minority.

[@paulkauffman1787]

@@kylekylekyle0k Look, you're not actually responding to me with anything you've said here. Healthcare isn't free. Employers and employees pay these costs. Healthcare benefits are priced into your compensation if you work for at a job that provides health care. Free marketers will tell us that we, potential employees, must factor how much we desire good quality healthcare by choosing a job that provides it (or not if you decide you don't care) and we know that doing so may require us giving up something else. So, we already know that many people are opting for the benefits of good healthcare coverage over other benefits/wages/whatever. We also know that M4A will cost less than our current system - every study (even those conducted by conservative think-tanks) says so.Hell, there's 11 *trillion* dollars that Warren's team expects to back into workers/businesses in savings. So where do the savings go? If your answer is that it just goes to business-owners and maybe we'll be lucky enough to be peed on with a trickle of it, well ok - but you can't explain away the newfound leverage employees will have when they *aren't* forced to choose between good health care and wages, because now helathcare is a right, and you take it with you no matter your employer. So, there's nothing dishonest in my comment - rather, I'd say it's dishonest to claim "we don't know what it will cost" when there have been estimates given - estimates, by the way, that we accept for every other issue when we talk about what things cost. It's dishonest to claim that we're only really trading off taxes for healthcare, when it's clear that the savings *don't* magically disappear - they go back into businesses and workers pockets.

[@The_Cadaver]

Thanks for everything you do, David. I appreciate you. Sanders 2020!

[@Dr.MikeGranato]

Nuance. Honesty. Logically sound and valid arguments. An internist in what best reflects reality rather than being (feeling) correct or validated. Few people have this sort of political mind, and we need more of them. Somewhat related - spending somewhat more per person to reshape the system so anyone anywhere can get quality treatment at any time for any affliction irrespective of any qualifiers is, in my opinion, wildly more valuable than a small to moderate increase in net cost. No hesitating to seek help. No unjustifiably insane surprise bills to pay that often bankrupt people. How much more am I willing to pay? Unclear, but we’d have to actually run the experiment to tease out that datum After all, we live in a SOCIETY.

[@virginiamoss7045]

Right now what we have is, "Your money or your life." That just is not right in America.

[@rogerwhittle2078]

If I had a £ for every time I've explained this on the internet, I'd be a moderately rich man, but I guess very few Americans have ANY idea of the nuts and bolts of say, the UK National Health Service? Here we go again. If you are over 18 and under 65, not in full time education, not on full time disability or treatment, then you pay 12% of your PRE-TAX income, if you earn more than $200 a week. (I converted the dollar amounts some time ago, but I don't think it has changed much.) If you earn more than $1300 a week, you pay an ADDITIONAL 2% of your PRE-TAX income. The vast majority of Brits have no idea what you are talking about when you mention copays, deductables, restrictions on pre existing conditions, annual limits, lifetime limits and so on. Because we don't pay any more than what I outline above and it covers everything. Note that word - everything. I know the system isn't perfect - I doubt any system is - but if anyone suggested scrapping it and using the American system, there would be riots in the streets. Seriously. The pitchforks, scythes and flaming torches would be outside their door that night. And if they were a politician, they would be out at the next election, with a good chance their party would be too, if they endorsed even a tiny bit of it. Before you ask, we have a population of about 65 million on a land mass about the size of Wyoming. Why do you think a system in which there are two, independent, for profit organisations between you and medical treatment, can be a good idea in any way?

[@DaHanG]

Great analysis by David “don’t shoot the messenger” Pakman. I look forward to a VAT vs. wealth tax analysis by David “I must caveat this” Pakman

[@coraltitan6225]

7:44 Do you know why overall spendings MIGHT go up? Because today you have wayy too many people who haven't seen a doctor at all. It SHOULD GO UP.

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

It would go up. The question that most families and everyone knows the answer to.

[@fionaweiher3808]

I grew up in UK and loved our system there l was so surprised that my US friends had such weird things they believed about our system l can tell you US military dependants loved the maternity care over there l was in maternity home with a few of them

[@j.danielmoore99]

Gotta be honest. You come out with one video and I'm like F-off David, then the next video I'm like Thanks David, that was really useful and insightful (like this one). Just thought you might like to know I have a love-hate relationship with your content lol

[@badsocks756]

Same. I bitch in the comments when he's full of shit, but genuinely appreciate the rest.

[@virginiamoss7045]

Glad to hear there are citizens out there who can and will seek all sides. The Trump base is infuriatingly entrenched in one single, ignorant view that they will not let go of if their life depended on it (and I suspect some have died because of it since they vote against their best interests all the time).

[@badsocks756]

@@virginiamoss7045 Yeah, like. I bitch and moan in the comments specifically because it's disappointing when someone I respect, like David, dead wrong in important ways.

[@virginiamoss7045]

@Kevin Tewey - Well, many are farmers, young farmers. Terribly sad. I can't know individual circumstances, but I can't help but wonder how they voted or how long they supported the Republicans. So many Republican voters have been for a long time and still do vote against their best interests. I can only guess that they are anti-abortion (I do understand where they are coming from) and base their entire politics on that one issue. It sure simplifies politics for them - no abortions = R. Go vote, look for all the Rs, go home, end of thinking. Then they complain that they have been left behind (by Democrats, of course).

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

From the frying pan into the fire, everyone!

[@meraaleta3750]

Hey David, Are these studies taking into account the long term (mostly positive) impacts of having a healthier society and the reduced need for crisis services due to people being able to go to any Dr before issues become dire?

[@ghostratsarah]

Not a call out or complaining, want to get legit input; if Trigger is now common language to mean 'offended', what should we call serious severe triggers for PTSD? (tumblr victim-complexers destroyed the legitimacy of the word long before anti's did). Former SJW with super severe PTSD, my first reason for abandoning the movement, when it was an actual movement, was the abuse of the term. So I'm seriously looking for input from outsiders.

[@keylime2998]

Medicare is loved by older folks , including republicans. Medicare for all is a simple term that most can understand. You r spot on. The reality is negotiations will hopefully create a combo of plans to create a better system.... as long as lobbyists don’t control the negotiations.

[@patrick1580]

I've been waiting for this video. I'm surprised it took David this long to make it

[@bobmanchester9051]

Great review. Much appreciated. I'm going to probably post this on my Facebook page. A couple of points I didn't hear discussed. Nothing was mentioned about learning. The value of a single payer as seen in the VA system is that if all patient data is processed by one insurer then as an example trend analysis can discover which drugs work better in specific populations. Then , contracts can be negotiated and more importantly physician prescribing patterns can change to achieve the best outcome. Better outcomes=lower cost. Second, with multiple insurance companies, who insure a person for maybe 3-4 years, and are then replaced by another company there is no real incentive for one company to take a "long view" of patient care. The long view is preventive care. Research into why and what causes the disease to take place so that real preventive care programs can be created can result from review of a single database. In our current system real preventive care is marginalized. When you understand that a huge amount of our healthcare dollars go to treating diseases that are preventable then preventing them is a huge opportunity to not only reduce cost, but have a healthier population. Meaningful interventions / programs can be developed and implemented that keep people healthy rather than waiting for them to get sick to receive care.

[@wolfgangvonheilman6886]

If you want to take the theoretical discussion to a practical end I can share what medicare for all looks like in Ontario, Canada. Health care is administered at a provincial level so we all pay provincial (state) tax. The cost for people making over 35k to 75k will be between $450-700 a year. Coverage does not include dental, hearing, pharma or vision which Bernie's plan does so adjust those figures up a bit. Everything else is as described. Free at the point of service, everything is in-network, no deductibles etc. Even if you double the cost I don't see why this would cost $7000-12000 in the US? What is wrong with our Southern neighbors?

[@michelbeauregard7326]

Actually, I live in Quebec, last year I did a detailed calculation of the cost for somebody making 70 000 a year. That person pays 5000 a year in income tax to cover healthcare.(keep in mind that 80% is paid to the province and 20% paid to the federal government). Somebody making 35 000 would pay about 2500/year. In the US, a worker covered by his company insurance pays around 5000 a year in premiums, and his employer pays an additional 10 to 15 000 depending on the types of coverage.

[@ColRusSer]

Well analyzed, David. I appreciate your unbiased opinion. And, of course, we do need a system where everybody is covered. I support Bernie unwaveringly, and I’m sure he’ll do what’s best.

[@stoontechguy]

The coverage of rural areas is a big problem in Canada, the infrastructure needs to be within a certain amount of time for every patient so you have more infrastructure per person. That said1) it does work and it meets quality requirements so it's possible if more expensive and 2) the US has 10x the population density. Even your least dense areas are still more dense than our middle density areas so no matter what it's going to be less of a problem than in Canada and Canada makes it work.

[@Dirge4july]

So im all for MFA but here is something i learned the other day and should be considered. While I was getting a teeth cleaning I asked the dentist what is her opinion is on it being a health professional .Little info, that particular place didn't take medicare/medicaid . While she didn't say if she was for it. Her response was if we did have a system like that the quality of the procedures would go down. She went on to say that when they use to take that insurance the government insurance time and time again the government would under pay for what it actually cost. Making them lose money. Making them not to even want to bother. She said she wants to help everyone but its just not viable to constantly lose money on doing so. So if this was implemented that seems like thats also something that would need to be correct. Has anyone else spoke with a health professional on their opinion?

[@Joe.s_475]

@@jamesdean2185 well it could very well be true, you won't actually know for sure how much it will cost until you look at the expenses for the entire business which includes utilities, tools and equipment, workers in staff that most likely are making 6 figures or a little bit close to that, insurance, technology, etc. So really for all we know this 1 small dentist firm could potentially cost $5 million or above to run a small dentist firm a month and say the government doesn't pay as much as what the dentist firm needs then the business will start losing money which could cause them to start cutting hours of employees to cut costs. But again we won't actually know that unless we take a look at each businesses financials because it can vary for each business and we can't outright deny their claim just because they dont support a policy that you want implementedm

[@Dirge4july]

@@jamesdean2185 wouldn't say it was an argument. She didnt pick a side on it. Just offered her experience. Which is totally worth the consideration. It does kind of shine a light on why these healthcare facility's wont accept the government insurance. Every company is driven by one thing. Profit.

[@freddiemercury4evr]

That's it, I'm unsubscribing..kidding! 😂 Bernie needs to talk more about how exactly it would be paid for, to win over some undecided votes. Thanks David, for your outstanding analysis.

[@corneliusagrippa4613]

Medical bankruptcies ALONE no longer being possible wins the argument. What about the savings that preventative care would bring? Many issues here. Cost of out of pocket costs not included, bureaucracy removal savings, are any people doing these studies have links (financial, familial) to the industries affected, etc

[@freddiemercury4evr]

@@corneliusagrippa4613 I'm voting for Bernie in the primary, you don't have to convince me. But it's important when he does rallies, town halls, or talks to people, that he explains in detail how it will be paid for..

He does have proposals on his website. The problem is the come up about $1 trillion a year shy of what would be needed.

[@seanstrangeway457]

One things that's hard to measure is the amount of people who currently have healthcare dont go to the doctor when they should due to the cost they will take on.

[@CC-vq1yg]

I'm one of them... the ankle ligaments are only a little torn, a days rest will be enough.

[@jennifer7685]

you look particularly handsome in this video. maybe there's better lighting? also, this is my favorite clip from you ever. it's like a terrific punchlist for arguments, since i'm frequently in debates with people who don't understand it.

[@TheBigGetEven]

More please...I think we need more of this type of objective analysis. Not just for choosing the best policy but also to get out ahead of potential pain points. If Bernie becomes president, pressure Mitch into rolling over, gets his way....we need to be sure people don't sour when they see their taxes bump up, or they have to wait. Or the fact that there may be such a spike in demand for healthcare that we won't have enough healthcare professionals at first. But as more are hired, and that initial spike tapers, we'll be better off going froward. Another potential pain point would be when some local hospitals that relied on margins they got from private insurers goes under. Which I'd like to hear more about that...about how if all patients are paying at medicare rates some health care providers will go out of business. I'd like to hear David deep dive on this aspect of the issue as well.

[@BrianMakesFilms]

I appreciate these thoughts and this analysis David. Really the first well balanced discussion I've seen on it that isn't dripping with partisanship and a dig in and defend at all costs on either side. I'd love to see more videos like this around other big issues that tend to be completely partisan. Unfortunately no amount of disclaimers will stop the trolls, but the good news is most of us get what you're trying to do! Don't feel like you have to reiterate your disclaimer that you're not attacking the subject every time you hit a new argument in future videos. The normal people get it...the trolls just wanna troll. Keep up the great work man!

[@lordofthebeltsthereturnoft1127]

What I never understood is how in America the people insist on adopting a model, and then following everything in that model. As if how you run your country has to be like a religion or something, what's wrong with just adopting certain properties or things that work for the particular thing it's meant for? Then adopting another thing for another area of society that needs a different solution etc, regardless of where the particular solution originated from (whether communism, capitalism, socialism, fascism etc). Instead of always trying to group yourself into these stupid identity politics "isms" and being manipulated to be against your own interests, how about you adopt common sense and look at what works in the world and demand the same for yourself in your own country? It seems very hard for Americans to get there though, since Americans are so caught up in the group identity of what any particular thing is supposedly from "that's commie bro" etc.

[@paulkeane7585]

How could costs go up if the administration costs are far low under Medicare than they are under a private system.

[@geoffdearth7360]

When Medicare was implemented in 1965 the eventual encompassing of everyone was envisaged except that Nixon was talked out of pushing that approach in favor of HMOs which allowed insurance companies to get their hooks into the system.

[@Will-om5wb]

Maybe I didn't hear the video right. But how am I supposed to defend this idea if we're so unsure about what will actually happen?

[@paulweaver7074]

The candidates hear you on this one

[@johnoldani5290]

Who cares what it costs, as taxpayers it’s our money for our benefit. I’m sure Bernie will work it out.

[@radiation_wolf]

Thank you for this David. More like this please. I’d rather be informed than happily ignorant lol

[@dank6514]

The Urban Institute's report suggests that Medicare for All would come at a much great cost than the Sanders plan estimates. However, their report makes some pretty bold assumptions starting on page 18 of the report, right under "We make the following assumptions, which in general we believe to be conservative:..." Among those assumptions are reimbursement rates of 115% as well as an estimated 6% in overhead costs. These are pretty large assumptions to make, and alone they likely drive up the Urban Institute's estimates by trillions. It is also interesting that even though they reduce the overhead costs compared to now, they still increase the reimbursement rates. In short, I think their report greatly over estimates the costs.

[@ilikethatboulder.thatisani5496]

Medicare for all is still the best option, even from an economical standpoint. But I'm glad u bring these up for discussion.

[@inthedetails5467]

I don’t watch Pakman, but this was a great video. What you articulated at the end is a core part of what a democracy should be. Medicare for all is a great plan compared to what we have currently but certainly will have holes and potentially create new issues if implemented, but that should mean the next healthcare plan after that should solve them, and so on.

[@aequitas9563]

I sometimes feel that the most important statements of David are those about political culture and debate.

[@karensullivan7152]

First up, I live in a country with Medicare. I don’t need to say for all because for me, that is a natural assumption. Sure, we can have private health insurance because Medicare does not, nor should it cover everything. What astounds me the most, by far, is the stories I hear of USA residents who travel to a country with our type of system that are faced with an illness or accident requiring medical care. First and foremost, no person should ever be so afraid of possible cost that they would “put off” or worse still “choose NOT to seek medical care.” The very fact that any person may not seek BASIC medical care is in my mind atrocious and inhumane. Nobody chooses to have an accident requiring medical care, nobody chooses to develop an illness be it acute,chronic or life threatening. Nobody chooses to have lifelong asthma or diabetes. Your government should want to improve the lifestyle of ALL, conditions in the work place, satisfaction and basic human rights including health care. To be forced into bankruptcy merely as a result of accessing and using medical care is medieval. I work in a health care field and one of the aims we strive for is to improve education of lifestyle and encourage regular medical checkups to reduce the chance of missing conditions being diagnosed as earlier diagnosis leads to improved outcomes, improving quality of life. I am talking about helping people to not put off going to a doctor for regular assessments of overall health. Our government uses its funds to develop programs to improve general knowledge to find and maintain medical conditions to improve quality and length of life. This is affected by choice and cultural beliefs NOT cost. Nobody should have to choose on the basis of cost alone. I would be interested to compare government interests and spending in reducing overall mortality and improving quality of life. I have a government that makes this easy to do with low or no payment for general practice care under Medicare. Obviously for me,the FOR ALL is taken for granted. I would think it is obvious that I could not in any way address every issue here, about our system or yours. Intelligent enquiry not nit picking and abuse is the way to a beneficial outcome. Working as a group with common interest in outcomes is required. Blackmail, abuse and irrational claims muddy the whole issue. I also think that there is “too many cooks in the kitchen” , that is too many people think that their opinions are the most important and end up disrupting moving forward. Take away financial incentives and payments affecting political decision making. The money that big corporations donate could be used towards improving YOUR medical care. That, I believe sums it all up very simply.

[@marlonbrimmer]

Your a corp shill (me looking just at the title) lol jk

[@misterdemocracy3335]

FUCK YOU (me looking only at the first part of your comment)

[@natek987]

*You’re

[@marlonbrimmer]

@@misterdemocracy3335 wompppp womp lol

[@AmieB2005]

I'm TRIGGEREEERED!!!

[@g_man2177]

There are two things that must be done in order for medicare for all to work: 1. Ask the question, is every American citizen entitled to basic healthcare? 2. A Constitutional Amendment must be made to state that American citizens are entitled to basic healthcare in order for this to work.

[@g_man2177]

Insurance companies need to be nonprofit for healthcare for all to work as well.

[@henrygustav7948]

The issue is not the money. The issue is if we have enough doctors, nurses, hospitals medical equipment and if we don't then we invest in those areas. Simple as that.

[@mikeconstanza]

The most worthwhile criticism to me is that of the disruption it causes. A whole lot of people will lose their jobs, and a whole lot of healthcare workers are going to take pay cuts. That doesn't mean we don't do it, but we need to figure out how to handle that transition justly and how to respond to that criticism.

[@hrmIwonder]

So basically it boils down to, medicare-for-all is likely the best system, but since the US is so corrupt, it won't work out like that.

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

No

[@corneliusagrippa4613]

So don't even try. You're doing great, guys, keep it up. Shit, I'm late for my Dr. Appointment!!! Don't even need to show my Health Card most times lol you guys just keep shooting yourselves in the foot. Canaduh might suck, but not that bad!

[@73cv43]

Nice job David! In order to advance, one must know what lies ahead. What will drive costs down in Medicare for all? One, everyone is on the hook. I can’t go uninsured when I’m young and healthy and get away with it. Second, start up companies and small employers would be able to compete of talent against huge companies that can afford high health care costs. Third, the government is the most efficient middleman! Social Security employees issue billions or more of funds to the elderly with a handful of people very month. Private industry would demand a transaction fee to put the benefits into one’s bank account. Finally, when health care costs are born by every tax payer, preventitive medicine and community health initiatives begin to take life. Why? Healthy people keep health care cost low along with taxes.

[@ThaBlkRainbow]

Great video. Great analysis. Of course there will be question marks around certain aspects of this policy because America has only delivered socialized healthcare to 3 different groups of people: Veterans, The elderly, and Poor/Children through Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. We have no other apples to apples examples so we can only work off of models and assumptions. I definitely believe M4A is worth a try and far better than a public option. The pace laid out in Bernie's plan of a transition taking place over 4 years will also add some headache but I think once the bugs are worked out. We will be much better off

[@geofox84]

Private insurance companies profiting off denying coverage is a huge problem. Eliminating them is one of the main goals of Medicare for All and that concern is not addressed in this critique of the proposal.

[@DoctorHver]

The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. -Voltaire

[@domjospal]

The arguments for or against Medicare4All by citizens are not relevant for our representatives in Congress. Polls indicate that most of us want to expand our current healthcare system to improve costs and coverage for all of our citizens for years. Obviously, members of Congress have decided that healthcare costs should be much higher for us than in other countries. If we want an improvement in our healthcare system, we will need to elect representatives who will listen and respond to the wishes of American voters. This will require educating citizens about what should be obvious, but seemingly not grasped by over 90% of American voters. That is, that our representatives who make the laws for us to obey have no obligation to listen or respond to us. This Supreme Court ruling in 1984 makes this clear: "Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court's case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to communications of members of the public on public issues." (465 U.S. 271). To learn more about our political system and what we can do about it to elect and control members of Congress and other representatives, visit TrueDemocracyNow.org

[@tobiramasenju6290]

Woah woah David I think you mean Medicare for all WHO WANT IT - J.K Trollings

[@burgerwitheverything9247]

That is how it will have to be

[@jenniemarie6702]

Bernie ❤️ TULSI 2020

[@brennanleffler]

This is an excellent analysis. M4A results in economies of scale and greater bargaining power to keep some costs down, keep profits more reasonable and totally eliminate costs like marketing, etx. However, ppl need to understand that what Bernie is proposing is like the Rolls Royce of Healthcare plans. Canada's universal Healthcare covers medically necessary care, and subsidizes pharmaceuticals to a degree, but it doesn't include dental or optometry, or extended Healthcare such as disability payments if you have to miss work. Those extended Healthcare services are usually provided through work plans that employers and employees pay into. Bernie's plan includes many of those things, so it will cost more than some countries' universal coverage. That may be better, but it won't necessarily be as inexpensive.

[@Ioiopopoio]

Great analysis. You are doing more to improve the conversation than these stupid debates. In Germany we have something like Mayor Petes proposal with everyone being forced have an insurance by law. It does work much better than the current US system but we have our problems with it too, mainly because the care for patients with private ensurance is better (but more expensive). M4A would be an improvement in Germany.

[@biggiesmol]

The govt can afford providing foreign military aid to Ukraine in the hundreds of millions when it's in no danger of war but can't afford healthcare for its own citizens?

[@Bobgo27]

How to solve David’s critique: create a sovereign wealth fund and use the profit to subsidize m4a. Done.

[@TheAlibabatree]

This is the best video ive seen of yours. Just stop apologizing to the extremists for being objective.

[@wfleming537]

Hey David just keep up the great work and drop the disclaimers its not necessary some people will always misunderstand most of us don't care we just want to hear the analysis.

[@williamwayne4043]

This is why I enjoy Davids content he's objective and pragmatic. Keep up the good work David. :)

[@errrkt]

Nothing surprising here, but still a very fair and necessary analysis of the substantive cost arguments.

[@annajorgensen1627]

Thank you David. Please find out more about this because we all need to know about every aspect of this plan. I just don't believe its going to be a good thing because so many of us have already paid our money into it.

[@kayjenkins1307]

I worked for a great Dermatologist and we have a shortage because it's very hard and expensive to get into Dermatology. The standards are very high. We have a lot of GPs that open dermatology clinics but they are not Specialists. We also have aestheticians that claim to be Derms but they focus on Beauty treatments. I'm sure there are other Specialist fields that have shortages too and Bernie's education plan will focus on that.